The issue of where we came from is called origins. Like the other two big questions (purpose of existence and afterlife), it does effect how we conduct ourselves now. If we are just another animal, and the result of relentless biological evolution, where purposeless nature has driven one species to an advantage over others, then we should expect to act in ways that will advance our own gene pool. This might be at the expense of other gene pools, or it might be in cooperation depending on one’s practical view of things. However, we would certainly always be looking over our shoulder at those in other gene pools who may have come to the conclusion that, like a reality TV show, they need to come out on top of our group.
While it would be nice if we could all get along, if our understanding is that it is about natural selection, there will always be those who will ruthlessly pursue an advantage in that game. If we care about our kids and grandkids, should that be our approach to life?
If we were created by the God of eternity, and then he breathed a special spirit into us, we are dramatically differentiated from the other animals. It isn’t about a frontal lobe, an opposing thumb, or self-awareness. It is about having a spiritual dimension, because we were made in the image of God. He created us for a purpose. He wanted to love us, and to be an object of worship by us. Not because he needed to love or be worshipped. However, he wanted to have a relationship with us. And he wanted us to love others, not try and find a gene pool advantage over them.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
This might be at the expense of other gene pools, or it might be in cooperation depending on one’s practical view of things. However, we would certainly always be looking over our shoulder at those in other gene pools who may have come to the conclusion that, like a reality TV show, they need to come out on top of our group.
Substitute "sect" for "gene pool", and you have a great description for religion's impact upon history.
That might have all kinds of layers of meaning, but in the most literal it only speaks of how a sect will act inappropriately. According to Darwin/Dawkins, this is how genes act all the time, and appropriately.
First, you're conflating evolution into some kind of moral prescription, which it is not. Nothing about evolutionary theory suggests how we "should" act.
Also, "just another animal" really displays your biases here. You're attaching value judgments to taxonomic kingdoms.
If God wanted us to love others, why did he give us "dominion" over the Earth? Why did he clearly favor one group of people (the Jews) over all others as his "chosen" people? Why did he further create division by saying that the only way to know him was to believe in his son, effectively closing off Heaven to anyone who hasn't had the luxury of hearing about Jesus? Why did God bestow upon people so many hierarchies and justifications for one group to consider themselves superior, by tracing lines of kings or by explaining who is acceptable to keep as slaves or what race is made of untrustworthy liars, if he just wanted us to all love each other and live in harmony? Going Biblically, God created the divisions in Babel which lead to racial tension and cries of superiority.
We're social animals, and we're capable of intelligent and moral thought. We're not restricted to natural urges, nor are we prescribed to follow them. You dismiss altruism and cooperation as if even in the most deterministic, materialistic interpretation of life, they have no place, no use, no utility. Even if you buy into the strict gene-centric view of life, humans need to copulate in order to reproduce. That means that two humans must come together to produce an offspring. More than one human is a society; in order for a society to exist, certain rules have to be established and followed (moral codes). If you want your genes to prevail, you need to maximize the ability of your offspring to survive and mate, which means guiding them, protecting them, and instructing them in how to play the game of society better than you did. As societies grow larger and more complex, so do the rules, so does the social game, and the challenges to the next generation will be necessarily different than for the current one.
So, put bluntly, the more you work with others and help others, the more others will be inclined to help you, and less inclined to kill you and your offspring. Because after all, their offspring will need to mate with someone as well. The person who ruthlessly tries to get ahead may be well-off in this generation, but how will all the people he stepped on feel when it's time for him to mate?
As we sometimes see in animal populations, it's not always the most well-adapted or powerful species that wins out, they'll often lose to the species that reproduces more or has a better infrastructure (so to speak). Life is a competition, and as with any competition, numbers often win out over nerve.
Incidentally, Darwin had nothing to do with what you're talking about; he was completely unaware of genetics.
Tom,
How do I escape seeing evolution as suggesting a moral system. If survival is determined by selection and I want to survive, I need to know how to get selected. If my survival is determined by God, then I need to know how to get right by God. If my survival on this earth is inconsequential in light of eternity, then I need to prepare for eternity, which means putting aside some earthly desires and approaches. If my survival is dependent on chance, another set of moral values are suggested.
Taxonomic. I had to look it up, and I still don't understand what you mean by your comment.
Dominion over earth. Not dominion over other people. God clearly intended for us to be equal from the beginning. He wanted judges, not kings, etc.
The chosen people were not chosen to be exclusive. Foreigners were allowed to become part of that society, and their rights are clearly spelled out.
I admit to not knowing how God deals with those who have never heard of Jesus. I can't prove it, Biblically,but I personally don't believe they are consigned to hell.
The issues in the next sentance involving slaves and heirarchys of all types are men's ideas. Especially kings.
Not sure on Babel. There are a few other instances when it says God hardened the heart of someone who later was condemned for his actions (Pharoah.) These are difficult passages, and once again, I don't have a clear understanding. However, I don't think God denied Pharoa or the folks in Babel the free will to decide for good rather than evil.
Tom,
the rest of your comment is generally in line with my pov. And I certainly understand that Darwin didn't know about Genetics. However, as I said earlier, Darwinian evolution creates certain obvious conclusions about actions, and those would not necessarily be the conclusions you reach above. Dawkinian theories create all kinds of new ideas about how to act, and he even spells them out. But then he tries to run away from them.
How do I escape seeing evolution as suggesting a moral system.
By recognizing that description is not prescription. And by recognizing that humans, through the amazing adaptation of intelligence, have significantly lessened the selection pressures on our species, so the matter of survival is far less "who is best adapted to the natural world" and far more "who is best adapted to society."
Taxonomic. I had to look it up, and I still don't understand what you mean by your comment.
I'm saying that the term "animal" does not carry with it a value judgment. It is a description of certain biological features which are shared by a kingdom of living creatures. Saying "just another animal" is as absurd as saying "just another mammal" or "just another vertebrate." An animal is a multicellular organism which responds to its environment and eats other organisms to survive. Do you deny that humans fall into that category?
Dominion over earth. Not dominion over other people. God clearly intended for us to be equal from the beginning. He wanted judges, not kings, etc.
Really? He wanted us to be equal? So when he said that husbands shall "rule over" their wives, that wasn't suggesting a hierarchy? When he said that women are unclean for seven days after giving birth to male children, but for fourteen days after giving birth to female children, he wasn't suggesting that women are twice as dirty as men? When he said that a father can sell his daughter into slavery, he wasn't endorsing a hierarchical system? When he said that the handicapped can't approach the altar of God, or they'll profane it, he wasn't suggesting that they're lesser people? When he laid down the rules for owning slaves, he wasn't endorsing inequality? Need I go on?
I suppose I do, lest you dismiss all that as Old Testament hooey and no longer applicable as per the new covenant. I guess then that all Paul's stuff about men being the head of women, and women being created in the image of man and for the sole purpose of serving man, and that women should be silent in church and obedient to their husbands, that wasn't endorsing inequality. I guess all that stuff about Jews and nonbelievers being damned and liars, and that you shouldn't marry them or even associate with them, or that thing about how all people from Crete are liars, those are all totally in the spirit of equality.
I admit to not knowing how God deals with those who have never heard of Jesus. I can't prove it, Biblically,but I personally don't believe they are consigned to hell.
There are numerous passages on nonbelievers and non-Christians. None of them are particularly merciful.
The issues in the next sentance involving slaves and heirarchys of all types are men's ideas. Especially kings.
So King Solomon, King David, and the King of Kings aren't positions endorsed by God? Those rules in Exodus and Leviticus and other books that describe the proper way to sell, purchase, own, and treat slaves aren't from God? What other parts of the Bible aren't from God? And finally, if slavery isn't God's idea, then why does Jesus compare God to a master who beats his slaves "with many stripes"?
However, I don't think God denied Pharoa or the folks in Babel the free will to decide for good rather than evil.
Really? Because when God hardens Pharoah's heart in order to prove a point, it seems to me that that's precisely what he does.
In regard to Darwinian evolution, it most certainly does not create obvious conclusions about actions. It makes statements about the way things function in nature, not the way things function in society, and in neither case does it describe the way things "ought to be." People who try to turn evolution into a moral precept or a social code are missing the point. It'd be like looking at gravity and saying "well, that's saying that everyone should strive to reach the bottom of things." It's not an "obvious" conclusion, it's an absurd conclusion, and one which disregards all the myriad ways in which human intelligence and human society have worked to circumvent natural selection.
And the same goes double for a gene-centric view of life. The model of genes naturally seeking to reproduce themselves is not a guide for intelligent, social living. It's an explanation of some of the driving forces behind evolution and species behavior. It's a framework for understanding aspects of tribalism and territorialism, in addition to the universal drive for reproduction, which we see throughout the various kingdoms of organisms. It says nothing about how things should behave, merely how things do behave.
If you can't see the difference between an explanation of "how things are" and an explanation of "how things should be," then I don't know where else to go with this discussion.
Post a Comment